Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan McMullin


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep/snow keep. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that the result will be anything but keep. WP:1E is clearly inapplicable. Neutralitytalk 04:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Evan McMullin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

McMullin was a failed presidential candidate who received less than one percent of the vote. He is of one event notability and Wikipedia is  not news. His notability, since the election, has been consistantly diminishing. TAG (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, not even a blip on the election radar, and article mostly reads like a campaign advertisement. sixty nine   • speak up •  22:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I don't think I've ever voted "strong keep" at any AfD, but I imagine there is always a first time. The subject received widespread coverage, amply justifying article. Notability is not temporary, by the way, it does not "fade." If there are POV problems with the article, fix em. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coming fifth in the popular vote for US President is not a non-notable thing. The current article is well referenced - GNG is easily satisfied. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not "fade" or "diminish", and he even if it did, he is still getting coverage as a leader in the "Trump Resistance". As Coretheapple said, any POV problems can be sorted out. FallingGravity 23:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. On what evidence can it be concluded that McMulliin is "consistantly [sic] diminishing"?--John Foxe (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "one-event" notability criterion was intended for crime victims, people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and people about whom there is insufficient information to write a meaningful biography other than with respect to the one event. It does not apply to people who have chosen a public life and ran a notable campaign for the presidency of the United States. Putting the matter differently, reasonable readers, present and future, may legitimately expect to find a biography of this person in an encyclopedia, and therefore we should retain one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was a notable part of the 2016 campaign, not least because he polling suggested had a real chance of winning electoral college votes. However the article could do with being re-written as a lot of it is policy and what he would do if elected. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I originally closed this myself, but was persuaded to re-open the discussion. As has been thoroughly demonstrated above, there is no justification for deleting this article. I especially endorse the rationale provided by Newyorkbrad. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is no justification for deleting this article. The statement "since the election, has been consistantly diminishing." violates Wikipedia's policy that | notability is not temporary meaning that once Evan McMullin reached "significant coverage" (Evan received significant coverage, especially in Utah, after he led in the polls there and from then to the election when he won 733,000 votes and was the subject of speculation as to who would win the state, with this attention stemming from how it would have placed him on the electoral college map) he qualifies for an article and his continued notability is not a factor. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.